Hey, republicans -- whose side are you on?

I've heard it said that the republicans are actually trying to make things better for poor people, not worse.

I would like to think that this is what republicans think they're doing. I mean, it's nuts, but at least their hearts would be in the right place.

But it's hard to believe that, considering all the hate that republicans aim at anybody that isn't rich. In their world, not being rich means that you lack drive, determination, intelligence, a work ethic, good decision-making skills, and basically everything else that makes a good person. If you ever come up short on money for anything, that's simply a reflection of how you came up short on character at some point in your life. Capitalism never fails anybody -- it's people failing capitalism, in their world.

So I figured I'd just ask 'em.

"Republicans," for the sake of this discussion, refers to people that vote republican on national elections. You might think of yourself as a libertarian, but if you voted republican for the president or the senate, then you qualify as a republican for the purposes of this discussion and, y'know, practical reality in politics. If you actually voted libertarian (or some other party like the constitution party or whatever) for either of those, then you can decide for yourself whether or not you qualify as a republican. If you voted democrat or green or socialist or anything like that, and didn't vote for any republicans at all, please abstain from the poll and just make fun of the republicans in text below.

Yes or no, binary question: Do you see yourselves as being on the side of the rich, or the side of the poor? Yes, of course there are more options, but pick the one that you feel is closest to the truth, and then explain your reasoning, if you would.

 

I'm not on any side. There doesn't have to be this war the left tries to start based on income and wealth.

 

I'm on the taxpayers' and consumers' side.

 

is this a yes or no question ?

or a rich or poor?

You may want try again with the question.

because anyone answering anything other that RICH..............is lying

 

But you can't answer the question, can you? You can't say that you're in favor of the poor because that's clearly not true, and you can't say that you're in favor of the rich because you don't want that to be true.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be the poor, given the binary nature of the question. And yet, you can't click that, can you?

 

BS!! I don't favor either. The rich should pay their share and so does the poor. It's that simple.

 

I am foursquare against the bureaucracy.

 

I'm sick of the left wing hypocrites. If it was the Koch brothers moving the tar sand oil through the country to Texas and not Warren Buffett the left would be all over it. But nope. Turn and look the other way because he is a left winger!
He moves his company to Canada to avoid taxes the left wing days nothing. Again it would be different if he was the Koch brothers. Hypocrites. Y'all are only for the rich if they vote for the left.
Do me a favor and see what it would take for you to take a vacation to Cuba like JayZ did. It was ok for Obama to pull strings to allow them to go. So if you are rich and a dem it's ok not to your fair share? Yup!!! Hypocrites

 

"World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

 

I agree, the rich should pay the same percent of tax on EVERY dollar they earn as everyone else, no caps, no discounts for un-labored income

how did republicans convince people that if you labor for your income you should pay a higher tax?

.

 

And so should the poor. No discounts. You receive something from the government there should be a way to pay it back. Labor on weekends if capable. Clean public land or roads or charity work. All fair

 

republicans want to help people become successful and help the successful makes others the same why is that so hard for you to understand

all liberals want to do is make the poor dependent
I will give you an example a liberal would give an alcoholic another drink to help him with his withdraws . a conservative would take him to a AA meeting

liberals just want to medicate the symptoms not cure the dieses

 

Daybreaker, in all honesty, you are ignorant of politics. I say this not as an insult. I am actually eating cinnamon buns and I'm having a cat in my lap so I'm nice now. really.

See, this very question, the poor vs the rich, doesn't even exist for most right wingers. They can't take a stance because they don't see it that way. You must understand that they don't see it the way you, and the left, sees it. Otherwise, you might think that just because they aren't on your side, they might be on the other side, which isn't true. If I were to ask you if you are on the side of the orcs or the elves, wouldn't you consider that a very silly question? If I'm pro-elf, doesn't it mean you're pro-orc just because you're not pro-elf? That's just how silly you are now with your silly poor vs rich question.

 

If I was so pro rich I would be singing Obama's tune like y'all left wing Obamanites. He is as about as rich as they come. The Clinton's are also really rich. Using your idea of rich vs poor I'm would be pro clinton.
Dumb thinking on your part. Not willing to take part of your class wars or y'all war on women.

 

With more Democrats being rich than Republicans, why would we love the rich and hate the poor? We don't love the rich, but we know it's the rich that create jobs, not the poor.

I can't speak for others, but what makes me mad about Liberals, is all they talk about is taxing more. Redistributing of wealth. More and more welfare and give aways. They never talk of how to bring the poor up. How to change things to make things better. I mean for 50 years we have spent trillions on welfare and have more people on welfare than ever before.

We know that much of the poverty out there is caused by kids growing up in one parent families. It's been shown when two Black parent families work, the poverty rate is only about 2%-3%. I'm sure it's the same with Whites. But we have about 80% of black births done without two parents. About 35% for White births. We also know that there is much more crime, gangs and drop outs in one parent families. But do you hear Democrats talking of fixing this problem? No, they only talk of taking from the rich and getting more welfare. Guess what? That doesn't work and I am tired of Liberals trying to make it work doing the same thing. I'm for working on the problem, not doing the same stupid thing all the time. Your never going to lift the poor up doing what your doing.

 

Scared of a war against the poor are ya? That is why the right wing spends so much money on propaganda, to keep the lower classes from rising up against the Aristocracy. This is nothing new, the Ancient Romans even did this with their own populace.

 

I'm not aware of any Republican's campaigning to help the poor, but it's does seem to be a liberal candidate message, though I suppose some in urban areas might be. Most do want ALL PEOPLE to advance and promote policy for all the people.

 

You say the main problem is single parents, what is the main cause for divorce and parents splitting? Income. So poverty is causing poverty, hence why its refereed to as the Cycle of Poverty. We need to increase their income, their wage, in order to increase their chances of not getting divorced.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not true, the Right Wing espouses greed like its everyones duty to be as greedy as humanly possible, you think someone only worried about greed could possibly care about the poor? No way. The vast majority of the Right dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*)

- - - Updated - - -

We dont hate all rich people, just the ones who are unwilling to pay their fair share and increase taxes to help the poor they have directly and willfully disenfranchised

 

It's 80% of these births are without fathers, kids having sex and not married. Unless of course Married men are getting their wife pregnant and deserting them after birth

 

What about the Koch Brothers and all the Right Wingers who kiss their ass? Do they care equally about the poor as they do about themselves, the incredibly wealthy? I very very highly doubt it.

 

Taxcutter says:
There is a lot of truth in that post.

 

I don't know about political parties which is best for the poor and which one isn't. But my dad always taught me to give anyone who needed it a hand up, but never a hand out.

His reason a hand up will help whomever it is given to improve and a handout does nothing but maintain the status quo. Perhaps it was his way of saying teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime, give a man a fish and he eats for a day.

 

Did you not even read what the (*)(*)(*)(*) I just said? You literally just repeated yourself, you are spamming.


Yes, the problem is people having kids without fathers, but why do fathers leave? The number one cause for divorce and separation is income, so if they had higher incomes the father is much more likely to stay with his kids. Meaning, we must increase their wages.

 

"Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity."
― Karl Marx

That is the Right Wing position, satirized by Karl Marx. The Right Wing openly espouses greed, you really think they care about teaching people to fish, or selling them their own fish to make money? The answer is obvious.

 

Anyone who thinks there are sides, is doing more harm than good.





​